[cabfpub] Conflicting sections updated by two or more ballots at the same time

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

Dear Members,

Following-up on an issue that came up during the discussion 
<https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2024-January/004133.html> 
of a ballot in the server certificate WG, I created 
https://github.com/cabforum/forum/issues/42 and hope to discuss at the 
next F2F, but we could start earlier using the mailing list.

IMO every code management system MUST have a process to address 
"conflicts" that may be caused when two independent processes try to 
update the same part of a document. The current language in the Bylaws 
do not *require *the proposer to describe what the outcome of the ballot 
should be if a previous ballot passes or fails. It leaves this at the 
discretion of the proposer of the subsequent ballot.

Do others see this as a risk that needs to be addressed firmly in the 
Bylaws, changing the "may" into a "shall"?

In practice, the proposer of a subsequent ballot would need to include 
two versions of the language of the conflicting section:

 1.   the language of the section if both ballots A+B pass
 2. the language of the section of ballot A fails and ballot B passes

It doesn't seem too much of a burden to me and the benefits are obvious 
(removal of the risk of creating an unstable end state of the 
conflicting section).

Happy to hear other opinions.

Dimitris.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20240124/44dc1dcb/attachment.html>